I am Dave. I am from Guilford, Vermont. I’ll have to admit I got
lost in some of your theological and exegesis of the scriptures. Personally
I’m not a biblical literalist, I’m a Baptist, free-thinking
type. The one thing I do is take the Bible seriously. Because I think
it’s based on millennia of human experience. I note as I read the
Bible that we’re taught to love one another. Pretty sure on that.
It also says do not have sex with someone else of the same sex. And to
me it's pretty sure on that. Why does this discussion always assume that
these are drawing together when the Bible makes a very clear distinction
between loving one another versus having sex with somebody else of the
You were referring to me? I thought you were referring to Rev. Rankin
when you said you couldn’t follow his argument.
No, no, no, no, no. None of that.
Oh that’s fine. Worth the price of admission.
If I understand your question correctly there are certain premises that
inform it. You brought them up which is the Bible condemns homosexuality.
I say the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. I make my ministry trying
to prove that point. So I can’t help you with that because I would
say that the answer to obeying the commandment to love one another is
to love the homosexual as you would love yourself. If you want your loneliness
to be overcome then allow their loneliness to be overcome in the only
way that it can be overcome.
You have presuppositions into that. Is it possible to love someone with
whom you disagree? That’s the deepest question we’re looking
at. So do I love someone who is guilty of adultery. Absolutely. Do I approve
of the adultery. No. Both the adultery and homosexual acts are contrary
to the law of Moses. I think that’s the greatest debate we have
right now. Is when Jesus says love one another, there’s content
to it. He said, if you love me you will obey my commandment. Part of his
commandments are that he came to fulfill the law of Moses. The law of
Moses says man and woman in marriage.
My name is Tod. Pastor Kindle, you said that we are asking to deny humanity.
What’s interesting about that is in Galatians 5:16, that’s
exactly what Paul tells us that the Spirit of God is asking us to do.
It’s very clear. There’s a great number of passions that we
may feel obliged to act upon which are condemned throughout the Bible.
Incest is a particularly good example. On the heels of that statement
my question is, how would you compare incest to homosexuality in terms
of the sinful nature of each from a biblical perspective? Secondly, the
church is referred to repeatedly in the New Testament as the bride of
Christ as referenced by Pastor Rankin. Where would a homosexual fit in
to that model? We have a clear model that’s delineated right from
the very beginning of father, son, mother, in terms of a man’s wife,
children, we are children of God. All of this symbology all fits together
absolutely perfectly. Thirdly, you made statements that God wants to kill
homosexuals. I would ask you to explain Christ dealing with the adulterous
woman in John 8 and the crowd preparing to stone her in John 8 and tell
me how that fits into your statement, which I thought was rather bold.
Lastly, as to your arguments on creation. In Matthew 19:4, Christ states
very clearly, are you not familiar with the scripture that tell us that
God made people male and female. That’s Christ speaking who says
unequivocally that he is God. Again I’d ask you to respond to that.
Thank you very much.
Most of you can leave now if you like. [audience laughter] We’re
going to be dealing with this for a little while if we really went into
these. I appreciate, Tod, what I believe is a sincerely held belief on
your part and that you sincerely reached out to me just now to try to
help me understand your point of view. That means a lot to me. Because
it seemed to come from a good place and I appreciate that. Obviously we
don’t see eye to eye on these things. Just very quickly. Paul was
not talking about humanity, he was talking about fleshly appetites and
things of the flesh as opposed to things of the spirit. Certainly we’re
to get rid of those. It’s circular reasoning to say since homosexuality
is one of those things, therefore it has to go to. That’s what we’re
here discussing. Does it really belong in that. Incest and homosexuality,
actually Leviticus really doesn’t talk about homosexuality. It talks
about a man lying with a man as with a woman. It has nothing to do with
women. It says nothing about what women do or might do in that regard.
So it’s not dealing with homosexuality, it’s dealing with
something entirely different from that. The problem with incest is that
it’s not consensual sex. It’s total and thorough going abuse
of a human being with whose power you control. Consensual sex between
loving gay people can not be compared in any way shape or form with that.
What do you base that statement on?
He’s responding to your question.
As far as the bride of Christ, a gay person being a Christian is the bride
of Christ no differently than any man who is a heterosexual can be a part
of the bride of Christ. I don’t see any problem with that. The adulterous
woman? I’m glad you brought that up because adultery was punishable
by stoning as was a homosexual act. He let the woman off the hook so why
not let us let the gays off the hook.
And of course to respond to that, Jesus said go and sin no more. He didn’t
let her off the hook to continue in adultery. Let me give a couple of
points of response here. In Leviticus 18, one of the two places in the
law of Moses where homosexuality is mentioned, there is something called
a chiasm in structure of intent. I won’t go into what that means.
But what it does is it starts with sex close to man and woman in marriage
and moves farther away to show how we can move into things that are perverted
from the original motif. And all of these are regarded as perversions.
What happens is, you move from marriage of man and woman into incest,
into adultery, into child sacrifice, into homosexuality and bestiality.
There’s a logic of moving farther and farther away from man and
woman in marriage. Also in Leviticus, when it says a man shall not lie
with a man, that doesn’t disinclude a woman lying with a woman.
Paul makes that clear in Romans chapter 1. And I think I’ll just
leave my comments there.
My name is Nathan and I’m from Rutland. I noticed the considerable
absence of a Catholic or Eastern Orthodox argument. It seems to me we
have an evangelical view and a liberal mainline Protestant view. I was
wondering how you would explain the much older Christian stances on homosexuality
and the church. Thank you.
Well I have great fondness for Orthodox theology to this extent. That
the Orthodox as opposed to the Catholics don’t believe in an eternity
of punishment. They believe the entire cosmos, every atom in it, will
be redeemed by God over time. Ultimately everything will be brought back
to its pristine state as God originally intended it to be. That to me
suggests that there is nothing so heinous that God can’t get over
it. I don’t know why we can’t over some of the things that
hang us up as well.
I respond at this point as a former Unitarian, that I’m a radical
Protestant. I believe the Reformation is committed to reforming the whole
church, Catholic, Orthodox as well, back to scripture on its own terms.
Therefore, I believe in what is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, scripture,
tradition, reason and experience in that order. So I honor all those traditions
that go before me, but equally I critique those traditions as any of my
own traditions would be critiqued, as how faithful we are to scripture.
Now on the subject of the testimony of the older churches consistent on
man and woman in marriage in this context. There’s other problems
in church history, but that’s subsequent to this issue. There was
something else you just said there. I forget what it is so you’ve
lost my momentary wisdom.
There was a question about not only Eastern Orthodoxy but Roman Catholicism.
I answered both of those, but there was something else that I just lost
My name’s Jonathon. I have this for Pastor Kindle. It’s really
a simple question. It’s not highly theological. In making a man
and a woman, if God intended us to use our sexuality in a same-sex environment,
why can we not reproduce naturally in that environment?
The assumption is that sex is only for reproduction, and that’s
just false. The church has never taught that. The church doesn’t
teach it now. If that were the case we wouldn’t let old people get
married, we wouldn’t let sterile people get married. There would
be no marriage except for those who would likely have children so that
therefore they could have sex. The notion that sex is for reproduction
only is a false notion.
And I would not argue that sex is only for reproduction, nor would Genesis.
What I’ve argued is that God wants the two to become one, giving
and receiving trust, and intrinsically out of the two becoming one comes
the power for procreation. And in the order of creation with no broken
trust, no sin, the assumption is nothing will hinder the promise that
God made. So when we have the conclusion of Genesis 1, man and woman in
marriage, and in Genesis 2 in terms of the two becoming one, and the gift
of procreation in those texts, what we have is the fullness. So I think
the question being asked here is, if homosexuality is a gift of God and
even implicitly present, it can not fulfill the very design of the image
of God from the beginning, which is man and woman being intimate. Not
only procreation, and I don’t want to get specific here, but the
plumbing doesn’t work in terms of psychological, physiological,
spiritual and emotional health. Not only between man and man, but between
man and beast.
I am so sorry that Jesus never experienced full humanity. That never experienced
the joy of giving to a woman, who never experienced the full aspect of
God’s image in him as a human being.
So you’re sorry for the one you claim to be the Savior...
If you’re right I...
...while ignoring the whole metaphor of God as the husband to Israel,
and Jesus as the husband to the church.
I would be sorry if I believed that.
And therefore you are making him be man without his divinity and missing
the mystery of the balance between the two so he could be without sin
and yet fully identified with our pain and thus save us.
And unmarried and unfulfilled.
You can call me George. I noticed, Rev. Kindle, in your presentation you
used on several occasions the term homophobia, which I think has become
just a term that means the same as anyone who’s against homosexuality.
I noticed that Rev. Rankin did not use the term heterophobia. And I’m
wondering just how much this contributes to the discussion, the whole
entire discussion, not only yours, but the whole discussion of this issue.
When you use a negative term like this when the other side is not using
that negative term against those who propose the same thing.
I’d be willing to bet you that I used it once.
And that I used it...
Twice, I counted them.
It’s also in your biographical sketch. If you remember for Topeka,
you had the word anti-gay. And I said anti-gay is really a negative term,
and therefore you were sufficed with homophobia because it was a little
less against the person with more people being afraid of. So you’ve
initiated actually a more severe term than homophobia, and that’s
Yeah, because there was anti-gay.
But the question is, does homophobia serve any real purpose today. And
in fact I used the term first of all, in my mind the only time I used
it, to describe myself at a point in my life. Because you need to know
that I sat where some of you are sitting today. I have changed and I have
changed for a variety of reasons. Some of them you heard tonight. If the
shoe fits, wear it. Just calling someone homophobic because they disagree
with you is not a good idea. I try not to, but I believe there are homophobic
ideas in the sense that people are repulsed if you can include repulsion
as a phobia. I think that’s what homophobia is intended to describe
is people who are sickened, who are fearful of being in the company of,
and there are those people. But to say that if you disagree with me you're
homophobic is to say way too much, and I would hope to never do that.
Let me ask you two questions in response to that. Did you once sit where
I now sit in terms of my view toward homosexuals? In other words, am I
I can not see any homophobia in you.
OK. Second question. Is it possible to be heterophobic?
It’s a reality.
OK. And so the question is this. Jesus said in John 3:17 that God sent
his Son into the world not to condemn the world, but to save the world.
And what I find so powerful, and this goes back to my presupposition about
the nature of Genesis 1 and 2, and why I said at the outset tonight, I
can’t say no to something unless first I give the yes. And therefore
I think a confident argument has no need to accuse and typecast. And can
someone make a positive argument. Now we have to respond to things that
are negative and say no to a negative. But the question is, what characterizes
our language. Are we looking for reconciliation. Are we looking for the
positive, the yes, and the amen. My argument fundamentally is, and back
to broken trust, and back to the reality of so many homosexual persons
and persons struggling with heterosexual promiscuity is, the brokenness
of mom and dad loving each other and being present has led to so much
pain. And I argue as best I can to hold that union together as the unqualified
good of how God gave it.
Hi. My name is Katy. I’m sorry I’m the only woman up here.
I’m not here to challenge. I just need some clarification on some
things that you were discussing that went right over my head. Rev. Rankin,
you asked Rev. Kindle about any instances in the Bible for affirmation
of homosexuality. And you all started talking in Greek and Hebrew and
I didn’t [unintelligible]. You lost me. You spoke of a pederast
and the centurion in Matthew and Luke.
Was that an indication that that relationship, you were saying there was
a relationship between the centurion and the young man who was healed,
was a homosexual relationship?
I wouldn’t call it homosexual. I would call it pederastic.
And what does that mean?
It means an older man having a sexual relationship with a younger man.
That sounds like pedophilia to me.
Pedophilia. Pedophilia is the attitude. Pederasty is the act.
No, pedophilia is a child.
And so that is your instance of homosexuality in the Bible?
That’s the clear one if there is a clear one. There are many other
things going on.
Can I just read the text where he gets this from?
Jesus entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him asking for help. ‘Lord’,
he said, ‘my servant -- pedea [phonetic] -- lies at home paralyzed
and is in terrible suffering.’ Jesus said, ‘I will go and
heal him.’ The centurion replied, ‘Lord, I do not deserve
to have you come under my roof. But just say the word and my servant will
be healed. For I myself am a man under authority with soldiers under me.
I tell this one go and he goes, and that one come and he comes. I say
to my servant do this and he does it.’ When Jesus heard this he
was astonished. He said to those following him, ‘I tell you the
truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith.’”
has happened is, a word has been taken out of context that goes back to
platonic Greek pederasty. It’s put into this text. Jesus said he
has not found a man so faithful as anyone in Israel which means he has
to show back in Israel where pederasty is affirmed.
No I don’t have to do anything of the kind.
To be honest to the text you do.
No I don’t because the assumption of pederasty in the gentiles was
rampant, number one. And number two...
John. John. The text is also from Luke where you compare the two and you
have a much fuller story where he declares his love for his lover in words
that can be translated that way. And I’m suggesting that maybe that’s
what’s going on because of all the stereotypical, heinous gentiles
that present themselves in Matthew. This is just another one.
And that’s a clear example of eisegesis, reading into the text what
you hope is there even though it’s not there. Because the bottom
line is the gentiles in Matthew’s Gospel are honored for seeking
the true God. The argument I hear most often is David and Jonathon were
homosexual lovers because of the love David expresses. You can exegete
that whole text. The word love in the Greek Septuagint is not eros, which
would be sexual. It’s agape, the covenant keeping love of God, because
Jonathon forsook his kingly inheritance for David’s covenant faithfulness.
And so this is an example of digging into what’s not there.
Did I say that they were in homosexual relationship?
Then don’t put words in my mouth. Thank you.
I didn’t put words in your mouth, but I’m using this as an
illustration. You said that the centurion had his lover, referring to
I said, this is certainly a possibility and if you don’t have lenses
that preclude that. Greek scholars of ancient Greece without knowing that
was the Bible, look at that and say this is a pederastic relationship.
In platonic Greece, yes, not in the New Testament.
If it was a pederast relationship, and you’re saying it was sexual,
isn’t that the kind of relationship that our society condemns and
that we often accuse homosexuals of promoting, which is unfairly said
That’s why we have to be careful when we call those things homosexual
when they’re not.
Because the centurion was likely...
Listen to me ma’am. The centurion was likely married, as were most
pederasts. Most pederasts had wives and children and had pais’s
on the side.
And so what you’re saying is that the best passage in the Bible
that affirms homosexuality is pederasty?
I didn’t say it affirms it. I’m not saying that.
The question came when I asked you. Where in the Bible is the closest
place homosexuality is affirmed as a gift of God?
That’s all I’m willing to say. It’s the closest place.
And the closest place is something you condemn, pederasty.
Well, but you condemn the Syro-phoenician woman’s religion.
She’s not condemned.
You condemn the prostitution of the harlot?
No. Rahab is redeemed and becomes a fore-mother to Jesus.
That’s a side issue.
Moses condemns them. Jesus doesn’t.
No. Moses condemns acts that lead to alienation, and Jesus has come as
a light to all the gentiles. And in Matthew’s Gospel, each of those
three gentiles are affirmed wonderfully because they sought the Messiah.
Well I’ll affirm the next question.
Two questions for Steven. My name is Jerry. I want to commend you, Steven,
that you are corageous in the minority position. I have to take issue
with it but I admire your courage. You seem to imply that because Adam
and Eve's relationship issued in sex, that sex is the only cure for loneliness.
Is that your position?
But you seem to imply that to deny a homosexual sex with someone of the
same sex is to condemn them to a life of loneliness or aloneness.
Absolutely. Because you're denying them to the broader relationship that
So you're saying you can't have the broader relationship without sex.
It generally doesn't work that way.
So you're saying, in your view, then, there is no broader friendship-relationship
that satisfies our needs and so that we're no longer lonely, unless sex
Jonathon and David were both married. Their friendship didn't do it for
Are you suggesting?
Their friendship didn't do it for them. Are you suggesting it was sexual
No, I'm saying if you say that, they had the ultimate in friendship that's
not sexual, which I am happy with.
Then that did not satisfy them as human beings because they did get married.
Again, you seem to say and what I have to draw from your remarks is that
you can't cure loneliness without sex.
Without a relationship which generally leads to sex.
OK. My second question is taken from Galatians 5 where the Spirit expressly
says that the works of the flesh are obvious: fornication, impurity, licentiousness,
idolatry, it goes on. Here God is asking you and I to deny base instincts,
to deny strong desire.
God isn't asking that of you in your heterosexual relationships.
No, but in this passage he certainly is asking us to deny strong desires,
is he not?
OK. Then it is certainly conceivable that God would say to the homosexual,
deny strong desire and my Spirit will enable you to overcome that desire
just as easily, or certainly with the same amount of power, that I ask
you to overcome any other strong desire. Are you saying that a homosexual
Christian does not have the power from heaven to overcome that strong
Jerry, there's two assumptions here. One is that it's wrong in the first
place. But the other assumption is that of course God could do this if
they would just ask. Unfortunately, that is not the experience of Christians
of long standing who are gay and who have fought and, in the case of Mel
White spent a half a million dollars trying to rid himself of these desires,
one of the most Christian men you will ever hope to meet in your life.
And that is the experience over and over and over and over again of deeply
committed Christians who say, God, get me out of this and they're left
in it because it is not a problem with their lust, it's a problem with
their loneliness that isn't being fulfilled.
And so we come back to the question, is there any positive biblical argument
that homosexuality is a gift of God versus the other position. That leads
us to this debate. I thank you Jerry for honoring Steven, because I honor
Steven as well. I had not idea what the makeup of the audience was, and
he's been grilled pretty well. And I thank you for that.
Hey that's why I'm here.
I thank you for that, Steven. Let me make an observation. Dr. Jeffrey
Satinover who has two or three Ph.D.s, he's down at Yale, has done a marvelous
sociological comparison on people with various lifestyle traits that are
all ultimately pathological. And you read through it and you see what
they are. The first list you come up with an alcoholic. The second list
you come up with a homosexual. And he compares them. He shows the evidence
that there is more successful change for homosexual persons than there
are for alcoholics. It's contingent on one thing: will power to want to
change. The bottom line is Esau sought repentence with tears but didn't
get it. Do you know why? He wanted a release from the consequence of his
actions, but he didn't want to reconcile a tender heart toward God. Only
God knows the heart at that point. We cannot base theology on people's
experiences. That's again the Wesleyan Quadrilateral. It's not experience,
then reason, tradition, scripture. But it's the other way around.
OK. I'm not doing that, number one. And number two, we can't base my Mel
White argument and my Peter Gomes argument and the list can go on and
on and on, on saying that it's identical virtually with what happened
with Peter and Cornelius when he said, look at the experience of the Spirit
falling on them as it fell on us. We see them in the equivalent terms
as we see us therefore we must accept them. I see gay Christians in equivalent
terms as I see me. I see them struggling with different issues but struggling
as I struggle with different issues. We are all Christians. That is the
experience. I don't want to get into reparative therapy and all of this.
But the fact of the matter is, people's behavior can change. But their
orientation can not. If you think you are going to spend an eternity in
hell because of your thoughts, you will change your behavior.
Let me respond to that. I never make that a basis of appeal, trying to
scare the hell out of people. I know a lot of people who will keep to
their opinions even if they think hell awaits them, and they create their
own hell sometimes. Let me respond because one thing you've done tonight,
Steven, is you've made many arguments from analogy. Analogy is good but
it's always secondary. Peter and Cornelius. There's a prophecy all the
way back from Genesis through Isaiah of the inclusion of the gentiles.
So when Peter had to overcome his prejudice it was because of biblical
prophecy. So for that analogy to hold water there needs to be a biblical
prophecy that homosexuality was once excluded, now it's included. There
is no such prophecy. So that analogy does not work. Also another point
that Steven started with tonight, trying to link abolition of slavery
with abolition of homophobia. And yet if you were to look at a person's
DNA, you could tell the exact racial history, what portion is Asian, what
portion is African, what portion is Caucasian, Native American. If you
look at the DNA you know nothing about their human sexuality. It's a false
We have another question.
Yes, mine tonight deals with both speakers about love. If we truly love
our brother, funny you mention alcoholic, we have a brother who's an alcoholic.
Would we give him a drink of alcohol? I would say not.
I missed, would we give him what?
Would we give him a drink? Would we give him alcohol if we know he's a
known alcoholic. I don't think we would if we truly love that brother.
If we have a brother who's in a homosexual lifestyle. He's involved in
something that will probably lead to his destruction, will probably lead
to an early death, it will lead to misery through higher depression rates.
This is statistically true from the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta,
Georgia. We've done all sorts of studies that have shown the lifestyle
of homosexuals is not good for the homosexual. So if we truly love our
brother who is homosexual, can we either promote or allow him to continue
in this lifestyle, knowing that the average death rate is probably 20
or 30 years less than the average human being here on this planet. And
that the time he will spend on this earth he'll be ridiculed, he'll be
living with disease, he'll be living with broken relationships, lot greater
rate than if he had a heterosexual relation. Can we let our brother continue
an avenue like that knowing what it will bring upon him?
What was your name?
Doug. Thank you, Doug. Great question, sincerely offered. I respect your
position, but you see you're doing that logical fallacy of assuming that
homosexuality is wrong and therefore we, as giving an alcoholic a dring
is wrong, and that's why we're here is to discuss is that really the case.
Now. I would suggest to you, Doug, that your statistics need serious revision.
The lifespan argument was based on research done by a highly disreputable
and disfigured person who has been kicked out of every professional association
he belonged to.
Who is that?
I've got his name here somewhere, I'll find it for you.
That's OK, you can do that later.
He promoted a lot of these things and they're picked up and people believe
them. But in many ways when you force people into closets, you create
an environment of illness by virture of the closet, by virtue of being
secretive, by virtue of being against one's self. By virtue of believing
that you aren't any good as a human being, you will cause that person
to do things that are harmful to themselves. That is precisely what's
happened with the closet in the gay community. If the closet were to disappear,
if everyone that we knew, our mothers and fathers and brothers and sisters
and friends and employees and children that are gay, would evidence themselves
overnight, the problem would be over with because we would not believe
that these people who are so utterly normal could possibly be one of them.
But because we force them into the closet they create an environment that
is not healthy. So it is not the problem of their homosexuality that is
causing this. It's the closet and the cure is to let them out, as Jesus
told Lazarus, come out and unleash their bonds.
And I'll pass on the applicability of that analogy. But if that analogy
is true then it would also say that if the society made marriage between
a man and a woman illegal, and if we had to be married faithfully, me
to my wife, without social approval, it means that we too would go into
sexual ill health and social ill health and what not. But that physiologically
is not the case. And the reason being, if you want the greatest physical,
social, psychological, and economic health -- and the data is overwhelming
from every discipline, every nation -- it's one man, one woman, one lifetime.
Once you break that bond of trust you get wars between former lovers,
you get sexually transmitted diseases. And as I said earlier, a man is
made for a woman and a woman for man in fidelity. Sexual intimicy outside
of that, particularly between two men, is intrinsically unhealthy, it's
intrinsically pathological. One final element here. The first study that
showed the lower age reality of particularly homosexual males but also
lesbians, was a study done in the Washington Blade by homosexual activists.
So maybe there's someone who did it without being reputable, but there
are very many reputable studies. And Steven I'm going to get you some
material on those studies.
Sounds like an argument for gay marriage to me.
How could it be? Because what you're saying, therefore, it will change
Because that will end the promiscuity.
Can I answer the question?
It will end the promiscuity if they're in a committed relationship. And
all these things that tend to promiscuity that some of the community is
involved in, will be done with.
Well OK. The data will have to reveal itself, but let me make an observation.
Out of a study done in the Netherlands released just a few months ago,
not searching out the data I'm about to give you, was studying men with
AIDS diseases on a variety of fronts. They found those that claimed a
steady partnership, that's domestic partnerships in the Netherlands, who
claimed that, had an average of eight other sexual partners in the prior
18 months. Those who claimed no such stability had twenty-two partners,
even though they knew that they were sick, in the prior 18 months. The
first man and man married in Massachusetts in Provincetown, the fellow
said, oh listen, I'm not going to be faithful to him. We're not bound
by that. I think history is going to show that psychologically, physiologically,
spiritually, emotionally, fidelity only works with complementarity. Male
and male sexually, female and female sexually, are anti-diverse. They
are not complementary.
Hi. My name's Amy. I just want to go back to the basic question, that
heterosexuality or homosexuality are gifts from God. So essentially what
I'm hearing is sexuality is a gift from God, right?
OK. My understanding of the Bible is that God is good because Jesus said
only God is good. He didn't even claim to be good in and of himself. Every
good and perfect gift is from above, our Father of lights. It's in I think
one of Paul's letters. So my question is, why would God give gifts to
people he loves if he is inherently love, that number one, he outright
said do not do in the Levitical law and also in Romans 1 in the New Testament.
As well as it leads to this torture of his children in their minds and
their hearts and their spirits. So I guess I just want to focus on God's
character because I know that man is fallen and I know we all sin in our
various ways as a result of our hurts. So how do you perceive God? Why
would a good God give a gift to torture his children? That's my question.
Sounds like a question of theodicy.
That tortures his children.
I didn't hear the last, to which children?
His. I'm talking about Christian homosexuals.
Why would God give somebody homosexuality as you say if number one it
hurts them because they can't fit into his family according to his word.
You see, the only reason it hurts that Christian gay person is because
the church will not permit that person to have the kind of overcoming
of loneliness that is required. If we would do that the problem vanishes.
And I think that is so facile and I think all the data says otherwise.
It's interesting, Amy, when you mention the
Father of lights. Look at the whole image of the fatherhood of God. The
fatherhood of God is bigger than male and female, but it comes to us through
the metaphor of fatherhood. A man and a man together cannot instrinsically
produce fatherhood. And a woman and a woman together cannot intrinsically
produce motherhood or fatherhood.
They can metaphorically.
And there's reasons for the metaphor. And there is reason for the whole
gift of sexuality as we discussed earlier.
Hi, my name is Alice Harrison. I'll address this to Steve. I spent about
eighteen years of my life as a homosexual. As I was born, I was born heterosexual.
Due to imprinting of early incest and sexual abuse and ritual abuse most
of my childhood and adult life, that opened a door to the ability to be
spiritually and demonically induced into the lifestyle that was not conducive
to my mental, physical, spiritual health. I chose as a result of early
childhood wounding to experiment with a lifestyle that is also not a lifestyle
that is conducive. I do acknowledge the fact that it is not a relationship
to one another that we should be throwing rocks at one another, but that
we can understand from one's inner hurts and woundings as children growing
up that aren't affirmed, that are not loved through their childhood and
put together with parents that are there nurturing. Because both my parents
were into sexual promiscuity and hurt our family very much so. One went
to prison and the other one, they were both alcoholics. I chose heterosexuality
through a conversion process of Christianity, which I was raised in the
church with, however my parents were not healed. They were emotionally
and battered wounded people. I've been free from living a homosexual lifestyle
for the last eleven years and have been married and widowed in a short
period of time. However, my own purposes for being in this type of field
right now is ministry to the healing of sexually broken, is to recognize
the fact that each one of us has areas of our life that have been wounded
severely by life's issues, that we are not here to throw rocks at people.
We are to look at them in the eyes of Christ and the compassion, with
the mind of Christ, with the thoughts and feelings and purposes of his
heart, that we might embrace them as individuals as Christ did, but not
the ideology. [audience applause]
I have a response to that and that is that I would never comment on an
individual's history. I am incompetent to do that. However, to say that
abuse as a child is a necessary cause of lesbianism says way too much.
I would say that every abused girl will therefore be a lesbian. And that
says way too much as many of you abused heterosexual women know. So to
try to say that lesbians are victims that started out heterosexual can
not be proved on that basis.
But Steven, Alice didn't say that was true for everyone.
I'm not talking about Alice.
OK. Then you're talking about what I said earlier. And what I said earlier
is that many have that experience but there is no statisical claim. That
many people have the same abuse go into heterosexual promiscuity. So I
think you are responding to a chimera in that response.
And some of them go into healthy relationships, so it all proves nothing.
OK, real quick here. This is for Pastor Kindle. This is Jonathan again.
Hey, what's up. All right. From what I understand in the Bible, basically,
God does not ordain marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a
woman. Therefore, sexual acts done outside of marriage is fornication.
Why then, if homosexuality is a gift from God, does he not make provision
in the marriage covenant for same sex?
I believe that heterosexuality is the norm, not the normative. To say
that Genesis teaches that it's the sole expression rather than the usual
is to say too much.
And brings us back to our assumption, is homosexuality a gift of God,
and if it is, please evidence it in Genesis. The best evidence that Steven
has come up with is the idea that a man could have chosen an animal.
And God chose an animal as a way of providing that, and it didn't work.
And you would have to argue that God didn't know what he was doing when
he tried to hook up a human and an animal.
That's right. God is dealing...
OK, therefore you reject Genesis 1 that says every form of life reproduces
after its own kind.
God makes us male and female after his own kind.
I reject your interpretation of omniscience, not Genesis 1.
That's a larger issue. You rejected the text of Genesis 1 as I quoted
In your mind, not in mine.
You haven't shown me otherwise. Why is it then...
I'm not going to show you otherwise.
Maybe somebody out here will get [unintelligible].
You're not going to show me that each form of life reproduces after its
own kind, and man and woman were made after God's kind. And therefore
to say in Genesis 2 that God could have...
That's what adoption is all about.
Oh gracious, that is an extended thought.
On that note I have to terminate the questions because I was just signalled
that we are out of time. I do appreciate everybody's questions here this
evening. And I'd like to invite each of our speakers to offer very brief